"Do some anthropological research, and you'll soon find out that humans are generally not meant to be together for long periods of time"
I have done some "anthropological" research and I have found that humans do live together for long periods of time. What do you mean by "meant?" And by anthropology- you mean the study of humans and their behaviour, well it is human behaviour for humans to live together for long periods of time, since it clearly happens to humans. If it weren't, we wouldn't be humans. But it can also be human behaviour to live together for short periods of time. So your point is clearly moot. next.
"Long term monogamous relationships are still something relatively new to the species as for the large part of after the origin of our species we were dying in our 20's. Evolution is very slow to catch up... Marriage as it is today is a judeo-christian concept and is not steeped in natural origins."
Whoa-ho-ho-hoa! This is a whopper if I've ever seen one. How do you know if monogamy is "relatively new" to our species if no one was around to tell how our species lived earlier on? Monogamy as a family model is found in texts dating back to ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, which also happen to be the first civilizations to write history. Since we don't have any earlier history on monogamy, you can't claim that it is "Relatively new" to our species. And where do you have proof that it originated from our ancestors' low average age of death? This is clearly your own conclusion and you have not provided any evidence to back this up.
Evolution is very slow to catch up? What does this even mean? Somehow our minds, cultural and social values precede our evolutionary nature? By saying that you, are just contradicting your own claim about "anthropology." The last sentence is the real kicker. Firstly, what is "Marriage as it is today?" Secondly, it is not a "Judeo-Christian" Concept. If you read about marriages, different cultures have different kinds of marriages, and monogamous marriages precede "Judeo-Christian concepts". Originally marriage in Judaism was polygamous and not monogamous. And the Mormons practice polygamous marriages today. And even within other Christian sects, marriages are viewed quite differently. So the term "Judeo-Christian concept" is very weak, my friend. And "natural origins?" what does that even mean?! As opposed to "unnatural origins?" Nature is whatever our universe is. So everything that happens within it, marriage or no marriage is still "natural" by this definition. There is no criteria you can give me that not human-centered that defines "natural" and "unnatural." Read about "Naturalistic fallacy."
"Generally this idea does not suit women, and thus they choose to ignore it, or cite the universal theory that he just hasn't met 'the one' yet, but you only have to look to the East to see that this concept is very western indeed."
What is this I don't even. Do you even know what you're talking about here? It's laughable. I understand your notion of "west and east" but, I can't say that this "idea" you speak of either originates in the "west" or "east." And so, what about the east? Hmm? Do they tolerate cheating men or something?
Okay, the rest of your post is more opinion than asserting facts.
"I hope things work out well for you, I just wanted to express a man's opinion honestly"
Just change "man" to "ignorant man" and you will be more honest! If you're going to bring science into this, do it right. Supporting one side and disregarding the other won't do it for you. You can't just claim that "we are humans with subjective values" but at the same time say "some of these values are more wrong than others and are unnatural as a whole." You are not the OP's boyfriend and you do not know why he is behaving in a certain way for sure. At least you gave your two cents, but it doesn't help if you're saying false things! But thanks for trying, anyways.
Comment Reply
"Do some anthropological research, and you'll soon find out that humans are generally not meant to be together for long periods of time"
I have done some "anthropological" research and I have found that humans do live together for long periods of time. What do you mean by "meant?" And by anthropology- you mean the study of humans and their behaviour, well it is human behaviour for humans to live together for long periods of time, since it clearly happens to humans. If it weren't, we wouldn't be humans. But it can also be human behaviour to live together for short periods of time. So your point is clearly moot. next.
"Long term monogamous relationships are still something relatively new to the species as for the large part of after the origin of our species we were dying in our 20's. Evolution is very slow to catch up... Marriage as it is today is a judeo-christian concept and is not steeped in natural origins."
Whoa-ho-ho-hoa! This is a whopper if I've ever seen one. How do you know if monogamy is "relatively new" to our species if no one was around to tell how our species lived earlier on? Monogamy as a family model is found in texts dating back to ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, which also happen to be the first civilizations to write history. Since we don't have any earlier history on monogamy, you can't claim that it is "Relatively new" to our species. And where do you have proof that it originated from our ancestors' low average age of death? This is clearly your own conclusion and you have not provided any evidence to back this up.
Evolution is very slow to catch up? What does this even mean? Somehow our minds, cultural and social values precede our evolutionary nature? By saying that you, are just contradicting your own claim about "anthropology." The last sentence is the real kicker. Firstly, what is "Marriage as it is today?" Secondly, it is not a "Judeo-Christian" Concept. If you read about marriages, different cultures have different kinds of marriages, and monogamous marriages precede "Judeo-Christian concepts". Originally marriage in Judaism was polygamous and not monogamous. And the Mormons practice polygamous marriages today. And even within other Christian sects, marriages are viewed quite differently. So the term "Judeo-Christian concept" is very weak, my friend. And "natural origins?" what does that even mean?! As opposed to "unnatural origins?" Nature is whatever our universe is. So everything that happens within it, marriage or no marriage is still "natural" by this definition. There is no criteria you can give me that not human-centered that defines "natural" and "unnatural." Read about "Naturalistic fallacy."
"Generally this idea does not suit women, and thus they choose to ignore it, or cite the universal theory that he just hasn't met 'the one' yet, but you only have to look to the East to see that this concept is very western indeed."
What is this I don't even. Do you even know what you're talking about here? It's laughable. I understand your notion of "west and east" but, I can't say that this "idea" you speak of either originates in the "west" or "east." And so, what about the east? Hmm? Do they tolerate cheating men or something?
Okay, the rest of your post is more opinion than asserting facts.
"I hope things work out well for you, I just wanted to express a man's opinion honestly"
Just change "man" to "ignorant man" and you will be more honest! If you're going to bring science into this, do it right. Supporting one side and disregarding the other won't do it for you. You can't just claim that "we are humans with subjective values" but at the same time say "some of these values are more wrong than others and are unnatural as a whole." You are not the OP's boyfriend and you do not know why he is behaving in a certain way for sure. At least you gave your two cents, but it doesn't help if you're saying false things! But thanks for trying, anyways.
March 12, 2011 - 2:56pmThis Comment
Reply